frackin politics! One term Tom!

Let's get this right. The drillers aren't going to pay the tax, they're willing to jack the price up, so us consumers pay the tax and they can still show a multi-million dollar profit.

Funny Upper Saucon's Patch covered Corbett's speach at DSU where he said there "Cant be" a tax but then in the same breath he said that he supports the idea of an impact fee, which is mostly to protect the areas that will be impacted by the drilling. This is a better idea then taxing them throwing the money in the general fund where it will go to Philadelphia and building stadiums for other cities.

"A recent study published by scientists at Duke University has shown that well water drawn within one kilometer of a fracking natural gas well is likely to have 17 times the level of methane as well water from further away."

The above is tacked on to the end of the article, as though it were just some bit of throwaway addendum.

It's not. It's a game changer.

It's WRITTEN by Duke scientists but PUBLISHED by the ultra-prestigious National Academy of Sciences.

The study identifies a direct correlation between methane contamination in drinking water and nearby drilling sites where fracking has taken place.

And in explaining the mechanism, they REJECT the O&G industry's longtime hypothesis that it's just "naturally occurring" gas that has been showing up in people's water wells all over the country where fracking is going on.

So what is the mechanism? The study says it's between two main possibilities: either it's "leaky gas-well casings" or "that the process of hydraulic fracturing generates new fractures or enlarges existing ones above the target shale formation."

Either way, it's NOT safe.

How many taxes are you going to permit the government to levy on you. Keep in mind that these guys will collect the taxes for the government. If the state wants a fracking tax have them eliminate another tax. Otherwise stop the bloody taxing now. Of course those of you who love taxing the evil companies, I would remind you that you can pony up as much as you want in taxes at any time. I have yet to see any pro tax person do that.
Chris Miller

The ease with which the natural gas companies are agreeing to this tax is troubling. Consider the current outrage at the gigantic profits the OIL companies have made in the past year as prices at the pump continue to climb. We will soon be seeing the same from the gas companies. I'd favor BOTH an impact tax to be kept in a fund to clean up the mess that will surely be made of some of PAs most beautiful forests and rivers AND a state tax (let's go for 2%!) Guaranteed the companies will make more than enough and will be willing to do business here regardless. We're sitting on their gold mine - we seem to be the only ones who don't realize it!

Hasn't anybody watched the documentary GASLAND! If you haven't, you should-- PA is part of the plot.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/gasland/

I am a Republican, but I must say corbett is BAD NEWS. He has shown that he will stubbornly stick to his own personal agenda, no matter what. Our legislature needs to challenge this guy.

Just a manner of speech, no apology necessary. I dont have the figures on jobs and revenue but I would think those STATS areare thousand of jobs and many tens if not 100's of millions in revenue for local and state economies. Company I work for and I personally sell maintenance supplies into that market and let me tell you every segment has been DEAD except for the Shale over the last 2 years. This is something Pennsylvanians should take notice of and encourage and not kill or tax to death.

Why are people arguing a tax fracking and not about how to get fracking out of PA? Fracking is environmentally unsound and although it might reap a momentary benefit of employment, the long term effects on the environment and potential hazards of clean up are immense. Below is an excerpt discussing these hazards from a Huffington Post article, April 26, 2011, on a fracking mishap in Canton, PA.

" Workers replaced a damaged portion of a natural gas well Monday night that had spilled thousands of gallons of chemical-laced water into fields and a stream last week. . ." the results of H2O tests are not back yet from EPA; owner says its safe. Read on...

"Drilling a Marcellus Shale well involves pumping millions of gallons of water and sand laced with chemicals down the well bore at high pressure to break up the dense shale rock more than a mile beneath the surface and release the gas trapped inside. The process is known as hydraulic fracturing. Some of that chemical-laced water returns to the surface as a briny stew carrying sulfates, chlorides, metals and naturally occurring radioactivity that the wastewater picks up deep underground."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/26/pennsylvania-fracking-spill-investigation_n_853726.html

France has already put a moratorium on fracking, Economist, May 12 --- http://www.economist.com/node/18682288.

Nothing green about fracking; it is part of the agenda of those concerned only about short term gain for future expense.

In case no one's seen this....

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/05/12/6630732-fracking-the-music-video

This Post Gazette indicates about 100.000 jobs but not all in drilling. Sure beats flippin burgers eh?

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10099/1048898-28.stm

Poisoned drinking water, destroyed landscapes, and gutted towns is a high price to pay for jobs. You took numbers and information from a study paid for by Marcellus Shale. Read further, and you'll find that an independent research group said "the job numbers have little foundation in reality." Read further still, and you find that the drilling jobs are mostly filled by out-of-state workers. Our governor is seriously selling us short -- an understatement.

Nancy O'Keefe

I recommend going to Linkedin and checking out several fact based discussion groups, especially for pro-Shale folks out there.

PA Live article May 29 indicated 48,000 new jobs. Still much debate over those numbers. Amazng environmentalist whackos can only whine and not offer any job creating only job killing ideas.
Yes I benefit indriectly so what.

Fact based or greed based? What the majority don't seem to understand is that under the Bush administration back in 2005, at the urging of Dick Cheney, former Halliburton CEO, Congress exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) as part of the Energy Policy Act, a loophole that exempts hydraulic fracturing from regulation. There are no balance of consequences. There's also more natural gas in PA than oil in the Middle East but we won't ever see the benefits(excluding some job creation and tax benefits), because the resource will be exhumed and exported because it's far more profitable to do so. As a property owner, you have only two choices. Allow fracking and get paid for the bastardization of your land, health, and drinking water-or don't get paid while they exhume it from a neighbors property. There is no going back-this is the "machine" that is Halliburton-the same that profited more from the ongoing Gulf Wars on Terror than any corporation on the planet.

So, Michael, are you suggesting we throw in the towel and let Halliburton and the gas industry just take what they want?...that they’re going to do what they want anyway, so we might as well get paid for it? Your comments are minimizing what is really at stake, which is not getting money for their access to your land. The bigger issue is the dangerous consequences that result from hydraulic fracturing…that chemicals like hydrochloric acid, benzene, and other poisons that are lethal to humans and wildlife are leaching into our water supply. These are only some of the toxins that we know about, but there are others that the gas industry won’t tell us because it is “proprietary information.” The gas companies will, however, agree with studies conducted by the EPA that the chemicals used at drilling sites do, and could could continue to, threaten the drinking water supply for years as the drilling fluids remain in the rock formations. So, how is money going to help when the drinking water supply is contaminated? It would be safer to have a landfill in your backyard. One other thing: this response doesn’t even discuss the other environmental impacts like the energy and water resources that are expended in the course of drilling for the gas; nor does it mention that shale gas may release more greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels. I’ll save that for another time.